Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical chat

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2013, 04:02 PM   #81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
Kirk, It sounds like you've made your mind up. I believe that decisiveness is a key to anything, so it looks like stage 1 is complete for you.

Charles and I had our version of the DOF in 2007, the studies that we did then, and the data that we collected are the reasons why we do not support a DOF when being utilized with the LN Ceramic hybrid bearing.

Jake, you are right that my mind is made up about the DOF. What I do will most definitely include the DOF. My big question is what kind of bearing will the DOF be spraying oil on??? I called Mike at TuneRS today and I am awaiting bearing data from him for what he offers. He made it clear though that he is not trying to sell a bearing solution. He is trying to sell a lubrication solution and leaving the bearing question mostly up to others. Your response though still leaves me looking for an answer. So you tested the DOF and found it unsuitable for your ceramic bearing, but WHY, WHY, WHY??? What is the reason, what did the data show? Doesn't the quote that Charles Navarro gave apply here?

Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


You make me think that there is no good reason not to do this by not supplying one.

Kirk Bristol

__________________
2000 Boxster S - Gemballa body kit, GT3 front bumper, JRZ coilovers, lower stress bars
2003 911 Carrera 4S - TechArt body kit, TechArt coilovers, HRE wheels
1986 911 Carrera Targa - 3.2L, Euro pistons, 964 cams, steel slant nose widebody
1975 911S Targa - undergoing a full restoration and engine rebuild
Also In The Garage - '66 912, '69 912, '72 914 Chalon wide body, '73 914
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 04:25 PM   #82
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Sharing the things that we know about spraying uncontrolled oil inside the crankcase would be targeting and would be frowned upon.

What we did was not a DOF, as that is the name that they have chosen for their specific product. Essentially it was the same thing, and there are more than a few ways to do it, some better than others.

I was simply stating that we have first hand experience with this form of potential increased bearing life. That's where our standing comes from, not just saying "Don't apply the pressure fed oiling to an LN bearing because we said so".

Like anything else, time will tell.. In fact you may experience some of the things that we did yourself. Just pay attention and share your findings fair and balanced, good or bad. Don't stop analyzing after the install, watch oil consumption, fuel consumption and pull the hose from your AOS after a hard drive before and after the intervention. Pay attention to every noise and every smell. In fact remove the hose from the AOS and block off the port on the intake and see what happens after a hard drive before and after.

Moreover, run your engine at 6,000 RPM for 10 minutes and drain the oil immediately after it shuts off, then do the same test and install a cut off valve in the line feeding the oil flange. Then shut that valve off and do the same test at the same RPM and drain your oil and see what you notice. Then carry out UOA and compare before and after.

The majority of development is just paying attention; listen to the engine as it doesn't know how to lie and it will tell you what it wants and what it likes. Throw the engine on an engine dyno, or the car on a chassis dyno and shut the valve off and on between runs, or utilize an inline electronic fuel shut off to kill the flow of oil at WOT during a run and see what happens. When you do that you can integrate some transducers in the exhaust system and wee what you find then. Maybe you'll see something, maybe you won't and you have to be looking for issues when doing this, because everything is guilty until proven innocent- right?

You might waste your time and thousands of dollars, or you might find something that someone else hasn't.

What I stated here barely scratch the surface of the things that one would need to pay attention to when carrying out this sort of development. These kinds of things are all I do, all day everyday and it is enough to drive someone crazy. Fortunately I was already crazy before I started all of this.

Quote:
You make me think that there is no good reason not to do this by not supplying one.
Exactky. Your mind was made up before you even started posting.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist

Last edited by Jake Raby; 10-21-2013 at 04:38 PM.
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 05:06 AM   #83
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,092
The decision to reduce IMSB risk with what technology would be an easy one in a world of perfect information. That world doesn't exist for the Boxster community today and will not exist for years to come if ever. Owners can only rely today on the available empirical information and the opinions of the developers and other community members.

My calculus is simple...

1. The differential IMSB bearing failure rates documented in the class action law suit make it more likely than not that single row bearing weakness is the root cause of the majority of IMSB failures.

2. The LN Retrofit dual row real world experience over many years and thousands of miles make it more likely than not that it is a life of the engine fix as Charles opines.

3. The LN Retrofit single row experience suggests it is a long term fix, at least 50,000 miles, but its developers caution about inherent single row bearing weakness suggests it is a wear item that one should consider replacing at the 50,000 mile mark.

4. DOF may extend the worry free lifetimes of single row ceramic bearings far beyond wear intervals, but there is no empirical experience or developer opinion to suggest by how much.

For me, the above is more than enough to make an informed decision regarding how to mitigate risk. I don't find further hypotheses about possible failure mechanisms or the merits of one technology versus another helpful. They are speculative and their degree of correctness is unknowable without more data. And that's the beauty and curse of the scientific method - hypotheses are just informed guesses that beg confirmation through laboratory or real world observations before they are proved correct or not.

At the end of the day, each owner must look at the data, opinions and speculations that lie before him or her and decide for themselves if, when and how to deal with the IMSB risk problem.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 07:17 AM   #84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
Jake, I agree totally - the criticisms you received upon introduction of the retrofit bearing come with the introduction of any new technology that has not yet been proven on many vehicles over many miles in real world usage. It is the same criticism that is now being levelled at the DOF (and at the new IMS Solution).

I still maintain that for owners of double-row bearing engines, the retrofit is probably the most cost effective answer. For owners of single-row bearing cars, I suspect that the retrofit with your recommended replacement schedule is likely the most cost effective answer - although with better evidence on aeration, I would be inclined to see DOF as an important augmentation to a bearing upgrade/replacement. I also believe that for those for whom money is no object, the new IMS Solution is likely the best available technology, in spite of the fact that it has not been tested on the road by a large number of cars over a large number of years: the technology just makes sense to me. By the same token, I also believe that for owners of the larger single-row bearing engines, which cannot be replaced without engine tear-down, DOF seems like a low-risk upgrade. Lets face it, even if it leads to some premature replacements of the A/OS (and that is a big if, bearing in mind that the A/OS failures tend to be based upon failure, over time, of the internal rubber flap), it is much cheaper than complete engine replacement if the IMS bearing fails. As to minor oil pressure variances, again I believe that the engines were designed to accomodate significant variations in oil pressure as occurs naturally depending upon various factors such as oil viscosity, oil temperature, RPM's etc.

Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage. I believe that we are in exactly the same position today with respect to the introduction of the DOF and IMS Solution as those who originally purchased the retrofit: prospective customers must look to logic, risk, costs associated with those risks and the particular engine that they have. It may be, as I ssupect, that one size (or one solution) does not fit all.

Brad
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 01:55 PM   #85
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Coral Springs, Florida
Posts: 4
From all of these posts going back and forth, here and other forums, it seems that the point of our product has become lost. We developed a lubrication kit for the IMS bearing (ANY type bearing, original or aftermarket, steel, ceramic, ball or roller), not a bearing replacement kit as some have said. We have a mechanical component in a harsh environment, with friction and inadequate lubrication – it needs proper lubrication and cooling to increase its reliability.

We don't normally get too involved in message boards because responses can often lead to situations like this. Our posts online in different discussion boards were mainly to answer a few questions from members and to inform the community of a fix for the bearing lubrication problem. Unfortunately there are some board members with competing technologies and a self-preservation agenda that would rather engage in character assassination as well as internet muscle matches than to actually discuss our oil lubrication kit for the IMS bearing. Like someone mentioned, “this is a PR nightmare for companies.” All this back and forth is just confusing Porsche enthusiasts and owners in regards to the whole IMS bearing situation, doing more harm than good to both sides.

In the very near future we will produce a short video explaining our product in more detail, introducing another new product and answering your e-mailed (through our website) or PM’d questions during the next 10 days.
TuneRS Motorsports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 04:59 PM   #86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 83
Just picked up the Nov issue of Excellence magazine and read the article on IMS issues and the law suit with Porsche.Interesting to note the editors state that the best fix for 06 thru 08 boxsters and 911,s with IMSB is to just pull the trans,flywheel,clutch ect and remove the bearing seal and let the oil from the engine lubricate the bearing rather than wait for the lifetime grease to possibly wash out . I really love this mag and respect the info they offer.Are they engineers,builders,Don,t know but theres lots of ads in there mag this month on IMS fixes from many suppliers with different theorys BUT they don,t recommend any,just to pull the seal.They do state worth getting is the LN engineering oil filter/adapter because if the bearing starts to fail there is no bypass (as with the stock oil filter) and the metal fragments will not run thru the motor causing total destruction before hopefully noticeing it when doing an oil/filter change. This has been a really interesting and informative thread .
Warren
moresquirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 05:15 PM   #87
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Just picked up the Nov issue of Excellence magazine and read the article on IMS issues and the law suit with Porsche.Interesting to note the editors state that the best fix for 06 thru 08 boxsters and 911,s with IMSB is to just pull the trans,flywheel,clutch ect and remove the bearing seal and let the oil from the engine lubricate the bearing rather than wait for the lifetime grease to possibly wash out . I really love this mag and respect the info they offer.Are they engineers,builders,Don,t know but theres lots of ads in there mag this month on IMS fixes from many suppliers with different theorys BUT they don,t recommend any,just to pull the seal.
Exactly. This is the same thing that we are recommending and it seems to be more than adequate.

The larger M97 diameter IMSB has more load carrying capacity and is proving to be very resilient to lower speed performance in comparison to the M96 diameter bearing. This is the big difference as the surface speeds of the bearings is one of the main issues and the larger IMSB becomes unloaded at a lower engine speed than the M96 bearing diameter does.

Charles and I see no reason to provide fixes for the M97 IMSB, because the small amounts of failures that we see are immeasurable. We have made sure that our patents cover the M97 series engines and while we have already developed the components for them, we have no desire to offer them. We even have a version of the IMS Solution that can be retrofitted to the M97.

If I had an M97 car I'd pull the seal, use JGR DT40 engine oil, install a Spin On filter adaptor (to keep the oil free of debris and therefore keep the seal-less IMSB debris free) and change the oil every 6 months/ 5K miles. Then just drive it. You won't fine me making that statement for any M96 IMSB car.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 09:03 PM   #88
Registered User
 
Steve Tinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,522
[QUOTE=southernstar;368706]
Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage.

You are correct.

I had my LN ceramic bearing fitted back in 2010 when many people didn't know & didn't care about retrofitting the IMS bearing.
But I come from an engineering background, so the logic of the ceramics and the commitment in $$ portrayed by Navarro and Raby convinced me that it was a better solution than the factory original. Convincing enough for me to stump up close to $4,000 for the retrofit which to me is a serious cost for something you can't see, feel or hear!.
Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......

I don't know how much time, effort or dollars Flat6 and LNEng has sunk into the whole M96 bearing debacle (and probably they don't either), but you've got to give credit where credit is due - both Navarro & Raby will be bearing enough scars on their gonads to last a liftime - a bit like war wounds to be worn with pride.
__________________
2001 Boxster S (triple black). Sleeping easier with LN Engineering/Flat 6 IMS upgrade, low temp thermostat & underspeed pulley.
2001 MV Agusta F4.
Steve Tinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 03:03 AM   #89
Beginner
 
Jamesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
Garage
This is a fantastic discussion on the IMS bearing. It includes opinions from folks like me with an engineering background and many engine rebuilds, but very little (say zero) experience with the M96 engine, other than tearing it down for rebuild. It also has experts who do this every day for a living. Perhaps a little self promoting to be sure, but usually with the caveat, "I am biased, but..." . I did not see any one beating on anyone's character, their product approach perhaps, but that is expected in the marketplace. I'm also not sure why anyone would view this string is a "situation", it's a free exchange of ideas, some good, some maybe not so good. It is up to the participants to decide what they think. I enjoy the spirited technical discussion, and would hope folks would contribute to it with their ideas and products. If you've got something to say, put it out there, we all want to read it. I've learned quite a bit about the IMS - the latest comment on low speed loads (a little hand tip perhaps?) supports a thought I had on lubrication viscosity. Lets keep the technical discussion flowing, and maybe we can get the technical experts to tip their hand a little more...

Jim
Jamesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 06:10 AM   #90
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,092
[QUOTE=Steve Tinker;369011]
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar View Post
Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......
It matters in the following $350 sense…

The apples to apples trade off in rough price terms is this: the $650 custom manufactured LN Retrofit lubricated by sump oil versus the $1000 combination of an off-the-shelf ceramic bearing (@ $200) lubricated by DOF (@ $800). People struggle because they are trying to figure out what approach provides the greatest IMSB reliability – LN supposedly better bearing or the combined DOF fix’s supposedly better lubrication approach.

If the bearing is the problem, then the LN approach might be best. If lack of lubrication is the problem, then the DOF approach might be best. And if these two points of distinction – bearing quality and lubrication method - don’t matter much in real wprld applications, then the low cost option is the rational economic choice.

Last edited by thom4782; 10-24-2013 at 06:26 AM. Reason: fixed spelling
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 07:16 AM   #91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
TuneRS, I can fully understand why you would not want to get involved with a discussion of competing technologies except through PM or email. Indeed, one might even consider a refusal to get involved in what will inevitably devolve into public mud-slinging as taking the 'high road.' Neverhteless, from a reading of this entire thread I do not believe that anyone has suggested that DOF is a bearing replacement - although most posters who reference the system are suggesting both a bearing replacement/upgrade AND DOF where possible - i.e., in all but the later large single bearing engines in which the bearing cannot be replaced without engine tear-down.

Frankly, I and various other posters have been not only interested in the DOF technology, but supportive of the concept. To date it would seem that the only concerns expressed (apart from, like the LN Solution, the understandable lack of real-world use in a large number of cars over a number of years) is with respect to two issues:

1. potential oil pressure loss/differing oil flow characteristics in the engine;
2. potential aeration of the oil and the effects on the A/OS and upon lubrication generally.

I and others have already opined that, as the engines are engineered to take into account significant variations in oil pressure, the small amount of oil being directed to this bearing should not have deleterious effects upon lubrication of other parts of the engine. Certainly your successful testing even in racing environments would tend to support this.

I and others have also opined that, with oil entering under pressure through a line that should not contain air, aeration should not be a problem. Nevertheless, I and others have also encouraged a test that would compare oil on comparable vehicles both with, and without DOF, after equivalent hard runs. While I suspect your technology would pass with flying colors, a test/deomonstration should go a long ways towards dispelling concerns that are clearly held by a number of prospective customers.

Surely, answers to these questions in a public setting can only benefit your company. You would not be required to attack other products as, from what I can see, your DOF is the sole product on the market that is attacking the problem from a lubrication, rather than bearing design/construction approach. It is also the only product that can be used on the later, large diameter single-row bearings - which, in spite of some suggstions to the contrary, have suffered a significant number of failures even though the engines are newer and in some cases, much newer than the earlier single-row and dual-row bearings. I think we can also safely assume that without adequate lubrication, the number and percentage of failures in those large bearings will go up with increasing mileage and the passage of time.

Is splash lubricaton of the IMS bearing through the removal of the outer seal adequate in all driving conditions? The fact that this is apparently the only recommendation made by Excellence magazine is in no way conclusive; indeed, in a magazine that relies upon advertising revenue, it is understandable that they would not support any one technology over another. I also find it difficult to believe that if the solution was that simple, Porshce would not have merely removed the outer seal in later vehicles and recommended the same in a service bulletin on cars that had suffered failures, or required a clutch replacement.

In sum, this thread has shown that there is a great deal of interest in DOF technology even though there are some questions that remain unanswered. I, for one, believe that you would be doing this group of potential customers and yourself a real service by attempting to answer them. Don't take the bait - don't engage in mud-slinging with posts from competing technologes who are obviously proceeding from a biased perspective. Do, however, take this opportunity to not only explain your technology and to extol its virtues, but to answer some legitimate questions which have already been posed.

Brad
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 07:42 AM   #92
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Nevertheless, I and others have also encouraged a test that would compare oil on comparable vehicles both with, and without DOF, after equivalent hard runs.
This and other IMSB evaluations are currently being carried out by a third party. We have no affiliation with them, we only learned of the evaluation when they called us looking for test components, after they found the IMS Solution was out of stock everywhere they looked.

I made sure they received a component, though the unit I had to send to them already had 10,700 miles on it :-)

What they find will be interesting, and why they are doing the work is still both mysterious and interesting. They are NOT from the automotive world, but rather the General Aviation engine industry.

Maybe we'll have the opportunity to compare notes based on our own studies after they are all finished. I asked what they were comparing and their one word reply was "everything", but thats all they'd say.

I still made them pay for the unit, no freebies here and I charged them retail for a part that they know was used with more than 10K on it!
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist

Last edited by Jake Raby; 10-24-2013 at 07:45 AM.
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 07:46 AM   #93
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
Jake, very interesting indeed. Do you know if they are prepared to share the results with you (or to make them public)? I am not familiar with aviation engines, but do you (or does anyone else) know if any of them use an IMS?

Brad
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 10:44 AM   #94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sanford NC
Posts: 2,407
After watching Pedro's video....

Why would a vertical mount display of the bearing throwing oil be relevant to a horizontally mounted one? What testing was done to validate this relationship? Isn't the load at startup (when it is immersed in oil if the seal is removed) that is greatest?

Why wouldn't there be a discussion/description in the September 4th video on removing the outer seal so the oil can more easily enter the bearing? And why not just replace the bearing then?

There seems to be an acceptance at the point the video was made at continuing to use the OEM bearing yet in more recent postings that seemed to have changed.

With the DOF, where does the oil go once it gets past the intermediate bearing ball/race and hits the inner seal? Into the tube like it is said it does now? If a different route, what causes the difference? I see a port in but no port/path out is described.

How would one know on pulling the transmission that they should remove the outer seal? Or is this is even part of the DOF kit install procedure? How would they know to replace the bearing? With what bearing and why isn't that an optional part of the DOF kit?

There is the statement that "people" started reporting failures with the LN kit. Curious where the reports came from as the failure rate from any cause has been said to be less than 1/10 of 1% by LN. I've seen only one forum-posted claim and tracing it back the install was a first time install and very questionable.

The statement was made that there were hundreds of the DOF kits installed as of the posting on 9/4. Can't see why anyone would shy away from saying that when asked here. It is a far cry from a few done recently that might have been assumed.
mikefocke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 11:05 AM   #95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tinker View Post
Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated
Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:



See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication. Now if you could pump in oil from inside and just let it drain out of that slit you would end up with the area between the end of the shaft and the cover filled with oil - thus flooding the bearing at all times. Both the TuneRS DOF and IMS Solution plain bearing put oil inside and drain out of this slit. I don't see why aeration or anything else would be a concern in either application.

Kirk Bristol
__________________
2000 Boxster S - Gemballa body kit, GT3 front bumper, JRZ coilovers, lower stress bars
2003 911 Carrera 4S - TechArt body kit, TechArt coilovers, HRE wheels
1986 911 Carrera Targa - 3.2L, Euro pistons, 964 cams, steel slant nose widebody
1975 911S Targa - undergoing a full restoration and engine rebuild
Also In The Garage - '66 912, '69 912, '72 914 Chalon wide body, '73 914
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 11:32 AM   #96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 959
There seems to be an acceptance at the point the video was made at continuing to use the OEM bearing yet in more recent postings that seemed to have changed.
Personally I question whether the OEM steel bearing isn't sufficient, with proper lubrication. I just posted on Pelican data for the OEM bearing and it is actually stronger in dynamic loads than the IMS Retrofit ceramic bearing. OEM double row is unquestionably strong enough for the application (again see my Pelican post with the comparison chart). TuneRS doesn't come across as real strong in having to replace the OEM bearing if it is not worn - kind of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" idea. Personally, as long as I'm in there I'm going to at least install a new steel bearing.


With the DOF, where does the oil go once it gets past the intermediate bearing ball/race and hits the inner seal? Into the tube like it is said it does now? If a different route, what causes the difference? I see a port in but no port/path out is described.


See my picture in my last post and in a previous post. The oil drains through the slit between the shaft and the cover. As this is a small opening the area around the bearing will probably fill with oil and maybe even provide back pressure to the in-feed.

How would one know on pulling the transmission that they should remove the outer seal? Or is this is even part of the DOF kit install procedure? How would they know to replace the bearing? With what bearing and why isn't that an optional part of the DOF kit?
TuneRS has not focused their discussions on the bearing, but instead the lubrication kit that they offer. The kit does come with a new SKF steel single row or double row bearing. They are both RS types - which means sealed on one side, open on the other, ready to install. They also offer ceramic bearings that are significantly stronger (static and dynamic load). More details are on their eBay listing:

Porsche Intermediate Shaft Bearing Direct Oil Feed DOF Kit Single Row IMS | eBay

I am familiar now with what comes with the kit because I've called Mike and asked him a ton of questions and he has e-mailed me specs on the stock and ceramic bearings. All of this was to help me make an informed choice for myself and my cars. I've done that and last night I got my first kit from TuneRS. I think I'm going to install this one in my 2003 Carrrera 4S with a single row SKF 6204-RS steel bearing. I will see how that goes and then get a kit for my Boxster.

Kirk Bristol
__________________
2000 Boxster S - Gemballa body kit, GT3 front bumper, JRZ coilovers, lower stress bars
2003 911 Carrera 4S - TechArt body kit, TechArt coilovers, HRE wheels
1986 911 Carrera Targa - 3.2L, Euro pistons, 964 cams, steel slant nose widebody
1975 911S Targa - undergoing a full restoration and engine rebuild
Also In The Garage - '66 912, '69 912, '72 914 Chalon wide body, '73 914
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 12:42 PM   #97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
Mike, I believe that a new bearing is and always has been an option on the DOF kits - except, of course, for engines with the larger single-row bearing that cannot be replaced without engine tear-down. Indeed, as I recall TuneRS had originally included a new steel bearing with the kit, only the ceramic one being an extra cost option. And Kirk, thanks for posting that photo - it certainly does make clear the limited path available for splash lubrication. I am not saying that it IS insufficient, but it at least begs the question.

Brad
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 01:26 PM   #98
Beginner
 
Jamesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
Garage
What bothers me about depending on splash oil is the sprocket on the IMS shaft looks like it would act as an impeller moving oil away from the bearing.
Jamesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 01:41 PM   #99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 143
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk View Post
Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:



See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication. Now if you could pump in oil from inside and just let it drain out of that slit you would end up with the area between the end of the shaft and the cover filled with oil - thus flooding the bearing at all times. Both the TuneRS DOF and IMS Solution plain bearing put oil inside and drain out of this slit. I don't see why aeration or anything else would be a concern in either application.

Kirk Bristol
The example from the photo posted is equivalent to the gap on the dual row IMS bearing and flange assembly. That photo is actually a quadruple row IMS Upgrade we used to do on dual row bearing IMS shafts. We used conventional bearings in the very beginning, of which there are probably a dozen or two still in service.

The LN single row IMS Retrofit kit actually has a larger gap and we actually redesigned the flange last year providing an even larger gap to allow significantly more oil to get in there along with cryogenic treatment of the single row ceramic hybrid bearing to further improve the wear characteristics of the bearing races. However marginal an increase, we found a study claiming positive benefits of the process for 52100 bearing steel.

To quantify the lubrication requirements of the IMS bearing, I had a lengthy discussion with our bearing manufacturer and the lubrication requirements for a ceramic hybrid bearing are minimal and that barely more than one drop per minute is required, so about 1/20th of a cc.

As such, I will re-iterate that the IMS is submerged in oil and there is more than adequate lubrication with an open bearing in the M96's wet sump.
__________________
Charles Navarro
President, LN Engineering and Bilt Racing Service
http://www.LNengineering.com
Home of Nickies, IMS Retrofit, and IMS Solution
cnavarro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 01:56 PM   #100
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 143
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk View Post
There seems to be an acceptance at the point the video was made at continuing to use the OEM bearing yet in more recent postings that seemed to have changed.
Personally I question whether the OEM steel bearing isn't sufficient, with proper lubrication. I just posted on Pelican data for the OEM bearing and it is actually stronger in dynamic loads than the IMS Retrofit ceramic bearing. OEM double row is unquestionably strong enough for the application (again see my Pelican post with the comparison chart). TuneRS doesn't come across as real strong in having to replace the OEM bearing if it is not worn - kind of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" idea. Personally, as long as I'm in there I'm going to at least install a new steel bearing.


With the DOF, where does the oil go once it gets past the intermediate bearing ball/race and hits the inner seal? Into the tube like it is said it does now? If a different route, what causes the difference? I see a port in but no port/path out is described.


See my picture in my last post and in a previous post. The oil drains through the slit between the shaft and the cover. As this is a small opening the area around the bearing will probably fill with oil and maybe even provide back pressure to the in-feed.

How would one know on pulling the transmission that they should remove the outer seal? Or is this is even part of the DOF kit install procedure? How would they know to replace the bearing? With what bearing and why isn't that an optional part of the DOF kit?
TuneRS has not focused their discussions on the bearing, but instead the lubrication kit that they offer. The kit does come with a new SKF steel single row or double row bearing. They are both RS types - which means sealed on one side, open on the other, ready to install. They also offer ceramic bearings that are significantly stronger (static and dynamic load). More details are on their eBay listing:

Porsche Intermediate Shaft Bearing Direct Oil Feed DOF Kit Single Row IMS | eBay

I am familiar now with what comes with the kit because I've called Mike and asked him a ton of questions and he has e-mailed me specs on the stock and ceramic bearings. All of this was to help me make an informed choice for myself and my cars. I've done that and last night I got my first kit from TuneRS. I think I'm going to install this one in my 2003 Carrrera 4S with a single row SKF 6204-RS steel bearing. I will see how that goes and then get a kit for my Boxster.

Kirk Bristol
Where are you getting your data from on load capacities?

I'm sorry, but our ceramic hybrid bearing can't be weaker than OEM but TuneRS's ceramic hybrid is stronger. It doesn't work that way. There is a given load capacity for a 6204 single row bearing, whether conventional or not. Just by going with a ceramic hybrid will you gain load capacity. In fact, some charts say you might loose a bit, but by all measures, a ceramic hybrid bearing is considered superior to a conventional and is a logical choice for this application.

As far as conventional bearing replacements, there already is a kit with a conventional bearing - the Pelican kit. If you want to allow engine oil to lubricate it, just pull the seal.

__________________
Charles Navarro
President, LN Engineering and Bilt Racing Service
http://www.LNengineering.com
Home of Nickies, IMS Retrofit, and IMS Solution

Last edited by cnavarro; 10-24-2013 at 01:58 PM.
cnavarro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page